The author of more than 112 articles and seven books on IP as well as numerous amicus briefs, Mark Lemley has played a key role on many of the most important IP cases and topics of our time. In the past year, he has weighed in on the willful blindness standard with an amicus brief in Global Tech v SEB; vocally opposed the Protect IP Act along with 107 other IP professors; and is now representing The Dish in a copyright case that promises to clarify the law around how much unlicensed copying and storage of content is considered non-infringing with respect to digital video recording systems.

Professor Lemley’s contributions to legal scholarship focus on how the economics and technology of the Internet affect patent law, copyright law, and trademark law. He is the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, and the Director of Stanford's LLM Program in Law, Science and Technology. He teaches intellectual property, computer and Internet law, patent law, and antitrust. Professor Lemley is also a founding partner of Durie Tangri LLP where he litigates and counsels clients in all areas of intellectual property, antitrust, and Internet law.

Below are a few quotes from Professor Lemley on a few key intellectual property cases.

“Just as many people in the valley work for Android companies like Google as work for Apple,” Lemley said in an e- mail, referring to Google Inc.’s Android operating system that some Samsung products use. “I expect that a Silicon Valley jury will be more technologically sophisticated than most, and that may work in Samsung’s favor.”

“Apple-Samsung Patent Fight Unlikely to End With CEO Meeting” (The Washington Post, May 21, 2012) discusses the Apple vs. Samsung mobile device patent case in which Apple claims that Samsung’s smartphones and tablet computers infringe patents covering the design and feel of iPhones and iPads, and Samsung’s infringement counterclaims related to its Galaxy smartphones.

Each one has enough intellectual property to shut down the other’s products,” Lemley said. “I don’t think either one can let that happen. So I think they will have to settle for money eventually. Which way it flows, and how much, I don’t know.”

Oracle vs. Google
“Oracle-Google Case Shows Patent System Flaws” (San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2012) examines the patent disputes between Oracle and Google; and specifically calls out the patent system flaws throughout the reviews of the infringement claims.

Lemley believes the courts should play a more active role by dismissing outlandish damage requests, forcing trolls to cough up attorney fees and narrowing the scope of patent claims from broad descriptions to specific explanations of how the technology works.